BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
That doesn't sound like a sensible starting point for any form of charging especially a time based one.rjsterry said:
Half the time people don't understand what job they want doing or what it entails.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.0 -
More news about increased costs. Never mind, Jack's all right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60308494The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Why always obsessed with the negatives? There's plenty of countries that we already had that paperwork with and still do. All this means is that it's just as easy to do business with those countries as the EU now.pblakeney said:More news about increased costs. Never mind, Jack's all right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60308494
It's called "levelling up".0 -
They must be incredibly thick not to realise how thick this makes them sound as it implies this has come as a surprise to thempblakeney said:More news about increased costs. Never mind, Jack's all right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-603084940 -
Not my Brexit Guv
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It is starting to cross my mind that they really did think they could leave and keep the exact same benefits as being members.tailwindhome said:
When will the penny drop that they voted for worse trade terms?0 -
Sorry, poorly explained. We are offering something bespoke, and part of the job is to establish what that something is. We can give a fixed fee for that initial exploratory process, and some other clearly defined parts of the process but expecting a fixed fee up front for an unknown thing is unreasonable.TheBigBean said:
That doesn't sound like a sensible starting point for any form of charging especially a time based one.rjsterry said:
Half the time people don't understand what job they want doing or what it entails.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So I’d argue this was all known by the bunch of charlatans at the time. It was a cost worth paying in their eyes.surrey_commuter said:
It is starting to cross my mind that they really did think they could leave and keep the exact same benefits as being members.tailwindhome said:
When will the penny drop that they voted for worse trade terms?
The thing I wonder about is do they actually want these problems to go away or not?I’m forming the opinion that ongoing friction and fall out is the end game for clowns like Frost. It gives them an enemy to continue to rail against to excuse their ongoing lack of progress on domestic governance.
Perversely, a successful Brexit could have been a really bad outcome when your whole ideology is based on it being the ‘other’ entities fault.0 -
I think a lot of people realised there would be a trading arrangement that was not as good as the pre-existing one, but felt that there were other benefits. And I'm sure the views of what those benefits might be will vary depending on who you ask.morstar said:
So I’d argue this was all known by the bunch of charlatans at the time. It was a cost worth paying in their eyes.surrey_commuter said:
It is starting to cross my mind that they really did think they could leave and keep the exact same benefits as being members.tailwindhome said:
When will the penny drop that they voted for worse trade terms?
The thing I wonder about is do they actually want these problems to go away or not?I’m forming the opinion that ongoing friction and fall out is the end game for clowns like Frost. It gives them an enemy to continue to rail against to excuse their ongoing lack of progress on domestic governance.
Perversely, a successful Brexit could have been a really bad outcome when your whole ideology is based on it being the ‘other’ entities fault.
Whichever way you look at it, its done now. But clearly it was not in the EUs interests to make life easy for us, in case other member states decided to do the same thing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I guess my point is that these problems can not go away as they are a result of Brexit.morstar said:
So I’d argue this was all known by the bunch of charlatans at the time. It was a cost worth paying in their eyes.surrey_commuter said:
It is starting to cross my mind that they really did think they could leave and keep the exact same benefits as being members.tailwindhome said:
When will the penny drop that they voted for worse trade terms?
The thing I wonder about is do they actually want these problems to go away or not?I’m forming the opinion that ongoing friction and fall out is the end game for clowns like Frost. It gives them an enemy to continue to rail against to excuse their ongoing lack of progress on domestic governance.
Perversely, a successful Brexit could have been a really bad outcome when your whole ideology is based on it being the ‘other’ entities fault.
Wait until people realise the difficulty taking their dog into the EU
0 -
Leaving, by definition, means that travel, work and trade are not as seamless as they were.Stevo_666 said:
I think a lot of people realised there would be a trading arrangement that was not as good as the pre-existing one, but felt that there were other benefits. And I'm sure the views of what those benefits might be will vary depending on who you ask.morstar said:
So I’d argue this was all known by the bunch of charlatans at the time. It was a cost worth paying in their eyes.surrey_commuter said:
It is starting to cross my mind that they really did think they could leave and keep the exact same benefits as being members.tailwindhome said:
When will the penny drop that they voted for worse trade terms?
The thing I wonder about is do they actually want these problems to go away or not?I’m forming the opinion that ongoing friction and fall out is the end game for clowns like Frost. It gives them an enemy to continue to rail against to excuse their ongoing lack of progress on domestic governance.
Perversely, a successful Brexit could have been a really bad outcome when your whole ideology is based on it being the ‘other’ entities fault.
Whichever way you look at it, its done now. But clearly it was not in the EUs interests to make life easy for us, in case other member states decided to do the same thing.
This will affect some more than others but I baffles me that it needs the PAC to do a report on it and that it is front page news. Tomorrow presumably they will announce to shock and horror that when the sun sets it gets darker0 -
Are we on candid camera?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
😂tailwindhome said:Are we on candid camera?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Seems the Express has noticed it's not all going swimmingly. I can't remember, did they pick a side?
0 -
Global Britain is... imagining what it would be like if we weren't Britain.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Being out of the EU means we can now be like Germany?0
-
Raising my performance to match Pogacar would mean I could win a GT.
Wonderful logic.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I’m not fundamentally disagreeing with what you say but those are arguments that have been covered extensively.Stevo_666 said:
I think a lot of people realised there would be a trading arrangement that was not as good as the pre-existing one, but felt that there were other benefits. And I'm sure the views of what those benefits might be will vary depending on who you ask.morstar said:
So I’d argue this was all known by the bunch of charlatans at the time. It was a cost worth paying in their eyes.surrey_commuter said:
It is starting to cross my mind that they really did think they could leave and keep the exact same benefits as being members.tailwindhome said:
When will the penny drop that they voted for worse trade terms?
The thing I wonder about is do they actually want these problems to go away or not?I’m forming the opinion that ongoing friction and fall out is the end game for clowns like Frost. It gives them an enemy to continue to rail against to excuse their ongoing lack of progress on domestic governance.
Perversely, a successful Brexit could have been a really bad outcome when your whole ideology is based on it being the ‘other’ entities fault.
Whichever way you look at it, its done now. But clearly it was not in the EUs interests to make life easy for us, in case other member states decided to do the same thing.
My point is more that; is there a Cabal of anti eu politicians that are actually better served by the ongoing challenges presented by Brexit and wanting this extended settling in period to be as challenging as possible?
0 -
Thinking through Mogg being Brexit captain…
What this means is we are now focussing on are Blue rinse brigade pleasers.
To compliment the pint mark and blue passport nonsense, expect imperial measures to be a major focus of 2022.
Think they’ll shy away from a gallon of fuel though as the forecourt signs aren’t big enough and the number will be too scarily high.0 -
Perhaps petrol could be measured in gills to make the unit price lower - Brexit bonus!1
-
They accuse everyone else of being obsessed with Brexit and unable to move on, then create an extra ministerial position called "the brexit guy".1
-
Jacob Grease-Smog will fix it.0
-
-
There’s an irony that I think a lot of people have moved on and this is what scares the anti eu brigade.kingstongraham said:They accuse everyone else of being obsessed with Brexit and unable to move on, then create an extra ministerial position called "the brexit guy".
Brexit tore across party lines for many and became the most important issue to them that they would vote for no matter what.
Stoking the Brexit fires is the only thing can keep some politicians relevant.
I think the by election loss was symbolic of the public having moved on.
It’s a bit like the sporting trope, you’re only as good as your last game.0 -
Populist politicking aside, surely you need to evaluate the actual likely gains for regulatory divergence on something and then see if the cost of the divergence is smaller - if it isn't, then bloody well lock in the regulatory alignment into the next trade deal (and so avoid the cost of divergence), and if it is, then great, fill your boots.0
-
For Brexit MPs it was always about sovereignty, they don't care about the costsrick_chasey said:Populist politicking aside, surely you need to evaluate the actual likely gains for regulatory divergence on something and then see if the cost of the divergence is smaller - if it isn't, then bloody well lock in the regulatory alignment into the next trade deal (and so avoid the cost of divergence), and if it is, then great, fill your boots.
0 -
bizarrely he is probably one of the few that gets it. His 50 year prediction was not a faux pas it is a considered judgeent of how long it will take the UK economy to pivot away fro the EU and for the gains to outweigh the losses.morstar said:Thinking through Mogg being Brexit captain…
What this means is we are now focussing on are Blue rinse brigade pleasers.
To compliment the pint mark and blue passport nonsense, expect imperial measures to be a major focus of 2022.
Think they’ll shy away from a gallon of fuel though as the forecourt signs aren’t big enough and the number will be too scarily high.
As that time horizon is not helpful it is best to stick to inconsequential but visual stuff.
The fun will come as more people travel and realise it will cost them £200 to take the dog on holiday and other minor irritations and costs become more obvious0 -
Must be a SE thing. I don't know anyone who takes pets on holiday.surrey_commuter said:
...
The fun will come as more people travel and realise it will cost them £200 to take the dog on holiday and other minor irritations and costs become more obvious
Never met anyone over there who had either. 🤔The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
My Scottish parents have taken their dog to Spain. They are going for four months mind. I don't think it is a big issue for your average two week holiday.pblakeney said:
Must be a SE thing. I don't know anyone who takes pets on holiday.surrey_commuter said:
...
The fun will come as more people travel and realise it will cost them £200 to take the dog on holiday and other minor irritations and costs become more obvious
Never met anyone over there who had either. 🤔0 -
My daughter did it the other way round. Living in Germany, husband in the Army and on tour in Afghanistan. She came back to the UK for Christmas with the dogs.pblakeney said:
Must be a SE thing. I don't know anyone who takes pets on holiday.surrey_commuter said:
...
The fun will come as more people travel and realise it will cost them £200 to take the dog on holiday and other minor irritations and costs become more obvious
Never met anyone over there who had either. 🤔
I’m sure she won’t be the only one as I was just reading on a rock climbing site someone planning a van trip to Europe and asking about taking the dog with them.0
